Re: CVS commit: src/bin/hostname

[Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 18:15, Alan Barrett wrote:
> > New features that are likely to be controversial should be 
> > discussed before being implemented.
>
> I don't view these changes as controversial hence I just did it.

OK, it's not easy to predict what changes might be controversial.

> > Since you are not even willing to explain why you made the 
> > changes, I think thay should immediately be reverted.
>
> It seems that you can neither read, or you are just willfully 
> ignoring my explanation.

If those are my only options, I'll take "unable to read".

Please could you post a reference to a message in which you 
describe the detailed semantics of the new hostname(1) options 
(not just the one-line descriptions in the man page), and explain 
what problems they are intended to solve and why they are a good 
solution for those problems.  I'd like to try reading it again, 
since I apparently missed it earlier.

> I fail to see why I should justify myself when others frankly 
> just state their opinion with none or limited technical merits.

Anybody who introduces new options to an existing command, or who 
introduces a new API, should be willing to justify the changes. 
Your changes should be subject to the same requirement for 
justification as anybody else's changes.

> How the hell is their opinion worth any more than mine? Not 
> saying mine is worth more, but from where I am now it says my 
> view is worth squat.

I see two messages from you in this thread, and in neither of them 
do you explain your view.  I also don't see anybody saying that 
your view is worthless.  (I do see people saying that the change 
is a bad idea, but that's not the same thing.)  I'd really like to 
hear your view of why hostname(1) needs new options.

> Maybe it's time for me to step away from NetBSD.

I don't see any need for that.

--apb (Alan Barrett)